➢ Clinicians should exercise a high level of suspicion in at-risk patients (those who use corticosteroids, consume excessive alcohol, have sickle cell disease, etc.) in order to diagnose osteonecrosis of the femoral head in its earliest stage.➢ Nonoperative treatment modalities have generally been ineffective at halting progression. Thus, nonoperative treatment is not appropriate in early stages when one is attempting to preserve the native joint, except potentially on rare occasions for small-sized, medially located lesions, which may heal without surgery.➢ Joint-preserving procedures should be attempted in early-stage lesions to save the femoral head.➢ Cell-based augmentation of joint-preserving procedures continues to show promising results, and thus should be considered as an ancillary treatment method that may improve clinical outcomes.➢ The outcomes of total hip arthroplasty in the setting of osteonecrosis are excellent, with results similar to those in patients who have an underlying diagnosis of osteoarthritis.

Background:Much controversy still exists surrounding graft choice in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Over the past decade, an increase in comparative studies with longer follow-up has enhanced our understanding of current graft options and outcomes.Purpose:To describe the long-term comparative outcomes of ACL reconstruction with autograft bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) versus autograft hamstring (HS) ACL reconstruction with regard to clinical and radiographic outcomes.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A search of the PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases was performed to identify studies in the English language with outcome data comparing ACL reconstruction utilizing autograft BPTB and autograft HS; only studies with a minimum 5-year follow-up were included. Outcome data included failure and complications, manual and instrumented laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic risk of osteoarthritis.Results:Twelve studies with a total of 953 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 8 were level 1 evidence and 2 were level 2. Mean follow-up was 8.96 years (range, 5-15.3 years). No differences in graft failure or manual or instrumented laxity were seen in any studies. Lower clinical outcomes scores and greater motion loss were seen in BPTB patients in 1 and 2 studies, respectively. Two of 4 studies reporting on anterior knee pain, and 3 of 7 that recorded kneeling pain found it more frequently among BPTB patients. One study found significantly increased reoperation rates in HS patients, while another found a similar result in BPTB, and 1 study reported a significant increase in contralateral ACL tears in BPTB patients. Three of 5 studies reporting on radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis noted significantly increased rates in BPTB patients.Conclusion:This systematic review comparing long-term outcomes after ACL reconstruction with either autograft BPTB or autograft HS suggests no significant differences in manual/instrumented laxity and graft failures between graft types. An increase in long-term anterior knee pain, kneeling pain, and higher rates of osteoarthritis were noted with BPTB graft use.

Background: Female athletes are 2 to 8 times more prone to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture than males. Furthermore, reinjury to the ipsilateral or contralateral knee can occur in >20% of athletes. Female sex and younger age are known risk factors for graft failure. The optimal graft choice for young females remains unknown and poorly studied. Purpose/Hypothesis: The authors aimed to compare clinical outcomes in young females who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) and quadrupled hamstring (HS) autografts. It was hypothesized that no significant differences in outcomes exist between graft choices. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Female patients aged 15 to 25 years who underwent primary ACLR with BTB or HS autograft were included for review. Patients were subdivided into 2 age groups: 15 to 20 years and 21 to 25 years. The occurrence of chondral, meniscal, or ligamentous injury to either knee was recorded for comparison. Results: A total of 256 females were included (BTB, n = 175; HS, n = 81). The majority of patients were between the ages of 15 and 20 years (BTB, 80%; HS, 77.8%). Overall, graft rupture occurred in 23 patients (9%) and contralateral ACL tear occurred in 18 (7%). Subgroup analysis showed that 75% of BTB and 100% of HS graft retears occurred in females aged 15 to 20 years. Within this age group, there was a significantly lower rate of graft ruptures in the BTB group (6.4%) as compared with the HS group (17.5%, P = .02). Allograft augmentation was used in 4 of the 11 HS grafts that retore. When allograft-augmented grafts were excluded, there was no significant difference in graft failure rate between graft choices. Fifteen patients in the BTB group (12%) as opposed to 1 in the HS group (2%) reported extreme difficulty or the inability to kneel on the front of the knee ( P = .04). Conclusion: In females aged 15 to 20 years undergoing ACLR, BTB autograft may lead to fewer graft ruptures than HS autograft. While this difference was not observed in females aged 21 to 25 years, a larger sample may be required to accept the null hypothesis in this age group. BTB autograft significantly increased the risk of kneeling pain as compared with HS regardless of age.

Background: No consensus is available regarding the optimal choice of bone graft material for bone tunnel augmentation in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of different bone graft materials for staged revision ACL reconstruction. Study design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were queried through use of the terms anterior cruciate ligament and revision to identify all studies reporting outcomes of bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage revision ACL reconstruction. Data extracted included indications for 2-stage surgery, surgical technique, graft material, time between surgeries, rehabilitation protocols, physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic and histologic findings. Results: The analysis included 7 studies with a total of 234 patients. The primary outcome in 2 studies was graft incorporation (mean follow-up, 8.8 months), whereas the other 5 studies reported clinical outcomes with follow-up mean ± SD of 4.2 ± 2.1 years. The indication for bone grafting and between-stage protocol varied among studies. Autograft was used in 4 studies: iliac crest bone autograft (ICBG, n = 3) and tibial bone autograft (TBA, n = 1). In 2 studies, the authors investigated the outcomes of allograft: allograft bone matrix (ABM) and allograft bone chips (AC). Finally, 1 study compared ICBG to a synthetic bone substitute. Radiographic evaluation of bone graft integration after the first stage was reported in 4 studies, with an average duration of 4.9 months. In 4 studies, the authors reported the time interval between first and second surgeries, with an average of 6.1 months for ICBG compared with 8.7 months for allogenic and synthetic grafts. Revision ACL graft failure rates were reported by 5 studies, including 1 study with ABM (6.1%), 1 study with AC (8.3%), 1 study with TBA (0%), and 2 studies with ICBG (0% and 2%). Conclusion: The indications for staged ACL reconstruction and the rehabilitation protocol between stages need to be clearly established. The available data indicate that autograft for bone tunnel grafting in 2-stage ACL revision may be associated with a lower risk of revision ACL reconstruction graft failure compared with allograft bone.